Author
Topic: Do rights come from God? (Read 3272 times)

Do rights actually come from God? This is a common claim among Christians but I'm not sure if it's actually true. I know as Christians we have obligations and responsibilities (don't murder, don't steal, be generous, love others, etc), but it seems odd to me to claim that God has granted us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property simply because we exist.

However, as God taught us not to judge, or persecute, or kill....and to treat others as we would be treated, to feed, cloth....to love our enemies...

If we follow all these instructions that we would grant everyone equal rights.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

God gives us certain obligations (as have already been mentioned). Through reasoning we can use these obligations to derive rights to make a more civil society (one has an obligation to not steal, therefore we should say that one has a right to not be stolen from). But it would be a mistake to say that the rights themselves are God-given.

I don't see how one can say rights are God given in a religion where one is to expect to be persecuted.

God gives us certain obligations (as have already been mentioned). Through reasoning we can use these obligations to derive rights to make a more civil society (one has an obligation to not steal, therefore we should say that one has a right to not be stolen from). But it would be a mistake to say that the rights themselves are God-given.

I don't see how one can say rights are God given in a religion where one is to expect to be persecuted.

I think you have it. God gives us duties, not rights. Theoretically, if we all did our God-given duties things would be perfect. But then we'd be in Heaven.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Vatican Catechism has some delightful insights as to a Sacramental approach to human rights:

Quote

I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity."37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a "neighbor," a brother.1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."38

1933 This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. The teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies.39 Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one's enemy as a person, but not with hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy.

II. EQUALITY AND DIFFERENCES AMONG MEN

1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.401936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.41 The "talents" are not distributed equally.42

1937 These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures:

I distribute the virtues quite diversely; I do not give all of them to each person, but some to one, some to others. . . . I shall give principally charity to one; justice to another; humility to this one, a living faith to that one. . . . And so I have given many gifts and graces, both spiritual and temporal, with such diversity that I have not given everything to one single person, so that you may be constrained to practice charity towards one another. . . . I have willed that one should need another and that all should be my ministers in distributing the graces and gifts they have received from me.431938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:

Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.44III. HUMAN SOLIDARITY

1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of "friendship" or "social charity," is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood.45

An error, "today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by the sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity."461940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.

1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.

1942 The virtue of solidarity goes beyond material goods. In spreading the spiritual goods of the faith, the Church has promoted, and often opened new paths for, the development of temporal goods as well. And so throughout the centuries has the Lord's saying been verified: "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well":47

For two thousand years this sentiment has lived and endured in the soul of the Church, impelling souls then and now to the heroic charity of monastic farmers, liberators of slaves, healers of the sick, and messengers of faith, civilization, and science to all generations and all peoples for the sake of creating the social conditions capable of offering to everyone possible a life worthy of man and of a Christian.48IN BRIEF

1943 Society ensures social justice by providing the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain their due.

1944 Respect for the human person considers the other "another self." It presupposes respect for the fundamental rights that flow from the dignity intrinsic of the person.

1945 The equality of men concerns their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it.

1946 The differences among persons belong to God's plan, who wills that we should need one another. These differences should encourage charity.

1947 The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities. It gives urgency to the elimination of sinful inequalities.

1948 Solidarity is an eminently Christian virtue. It practices the sharing of spiritual goods even more than material ones.

However, as God taught us not to judge, or persecute, or kill....and to treat others as we would be treated, to feed, cloth....to love our enemies...

If we follow all these instructions that we would grant everyone equal rights.

Yes.God does not grant us rights - indeed, humans by themselves have no rights at all. We have a right to nothing, not even to life. Everything is, on the contrary, a gift. And because all is gifted to us, then we have no right to demand what we have and deny others what we have. We should freely give as we have freely received.

But I thought we became Orthodox to 'fast and hate individual rights'?

« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 04:25:41 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

However, as God taught us not to judge, or persecute, or kill....and to treat others as we would be treated, to feed, cloth....to love our enemies...

If we follow all these instructions that we would grant everyone equal rights.

Yes.God does not grant us rights - indeed, humans by themselves have no rights at all. We have a right to nothing, not even to life. Everything is, on the contrary, a gift. And because all is gifted to us, then we have no right to demand what we have and deny others what we have. We should freely give as we have freely received.

If life is a gift from God (and it is), the protection of that gift is an obligation for each one of us. Furthermore, if we are to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves, then we must insist on protecting the life of our neighbor. In a societal setting, that becomes a legal right. Thus, the origin for the right to life is indeed Providential.

However, as God taught us not to judge, or persecute, or kill....and to treat others as we would be treated, to feed, cloth....to love our enemies...

If we follow all these instructions that we would grant everyone equal rights.

Yes.God does not grant us rights - indeed, humans by themselves have no rights at all. We have a right to nothing, not even to life. Everything is, on the contrary, a gift. And because all is gifted to us, then we have no right to demand what we have and deny others what we have. We should freely give as we have freely received.

If life is a gift from God (and it is), the protection of that gift is an obligation for each one of us. Furthermore, if we are to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves, then we must insist on protecting the life of our neighbor. In a societal setting, that becomes a legal right. Thus, the origin for the right to life is indeed Providential.

A few issues. First, I would classify this as a duty. A responsibility. No one guarantees right to life. The State cannot save you from cancer or a tornado. It can barely even preserve your life from other people. God doesn't guarantee your right to life. Ask any of his martyrs. Or the woman a friend of mine knows who may be at this very moment giving birth to a baby with anencephaly. God guarantees us a right to eternal life if we follow his laws. In this world, anything you have is at God's discretion or what you take with your own hands (which would technically be impossible without His discretion).

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 05:49:22 PM by Punch »

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 05:53:44 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think some y'all are mixing up the legal definitions of rights (which are sometimes actually privileges) and the philosophical and spiritual aspect of rights as for example the way the Church examines human rights and dignity. Even if our surface rights are stripped by circumstance, such as being imprisoned, our inner rights to think, feel, and live are never deprived by anyone or anything. Nothing can stop our hearts from feelings, nothing can stop our souls from experiencing and reflecting. God has given us this right as human beings created in His Image and Dignity of spirit. We can have our physical privileges taken away, but every man and woman truly has the right to think and feel for themselves, and these rights were given by God. All over rights and privileges in the legal sense stem from this philosophical truth, that nothing can enslave or control the heart and mind of men. We may accept others ideas, but we are never slaved by them. This then is our right, it is the right to spiritual freedom, and it is expressed in the reality that God gave us all free-will to express and articulate the rights inherent of our souls.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

I am not a pacifist and I am comfortable, albeit, uneasy, knowing that there are times when a citizen must take up arms and fight to defend their way of life.

However, I think that 'rights' in the sense of civics and the state do require more than the exercise of brute force in order for them to be effective. Knowledge, voting, participation in community, social groupings, religious faith through the church, and most importantly - the family - are all required in order for the common good to prevail in a civilized state.

I think that your syllogism regarding power, and implicitly coercion, is too extreme and is one that bad men like Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or bad systems like Imperial Rome or the Third Reich utilize in order to control society and rationalize their actions.

Freedom comes at a high cost and must be defended in order to survive, but more than force is required in order to a society to truly be 'free'. (At least as 'free' as any earthly society may be.)

God's gift of free-will to mankind is the wellspring for the choices we make in life, both individually and as a society, that make the measure of the 'rights' of a citizen of a free land.

"Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?"

Danny Morrison

You fellows are only partially correct. Sometimes in the course of human events, war or revolution is inevitable in order to change the status quo. However, to tilt too far on the side of maintanence of temporal power is to make league with villains like Chairman Mao : "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Problems of War and Strategy (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.

As to me, I prefer Lincoln on this subject: "Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets."

"Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?"

Danny Morrison

You fellows are only partially correct. Sometimes in the course of human events, war or revolution is inevitable in order to change the status quo. However, to tilt too far on the side of maintanence of temporal power is to make league with villains like Chairman Mao : "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Problems of War and Strategy (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.

As to me, I prefer Lincoln on this subject: "Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets."

Many of the examples you bring up are revolutions. Those are tricky beasts. They eat their own.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

I am not a pacifist and I am comfortable, albeit, uneasy, knowing that there are times when a citizen must take up arms and fight to defend their way of life.

However, I think that 'rights' in the sense of civics and the state do require more than the exercise of brute force in order for them to be effective. Knowledge, voting, participation in community, social groupings, religious faith through the church, and most importantly - the family - are all required in order for the common good to prevail in a civilized state.

I think that your syllogism regarding power, and implicitly coercion, is too extreme and is one that bad men like Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or bad systems like Imperial Rome or the Third Reich utilize in order to control society and rationalize their actions.

Freedom comes at a high cost and must be defended in order to survive, but more than force is required in order to a society to truly be 'free'. (At least as 'free' as any earthly society may be.)

God's gift of free-will to mankind is the wellspring for the choices we make in life, both individually and as a society, that make the measure of the 'rights' of a citizen of a free land.

You will convince of that when there are no police. Face it, even "civilized" countries operate by force. The only difference is they have someone else do the killing for them.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

"Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?"

Danny Morrison

You fellows are only partially correct. Sometimes in the course of human events, war or revolution is inevitable in order to change the status quo. However, to tilt too far on the side of maintanence of temporal power is to make league with villains like Chairman Mao : "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Problems of War and Strategy (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.

As to me, I prefer Lincoln on this subject: "Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets."

Quoted by a man who was voted out of office by a bullet, after a war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to quash their "right" to form their own country. Seems like his words said one thing, his actions another. Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets, as long as the ballots say what they are supposed to. If not, then come the bullets.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

"Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?"

Danny Morrison

You fellows are only partially correct. Sometimes in the course of human events, war or revolution is inevitable in order to change the status quo. However, to tilt too far on the side of maintanence of temporal power is to make league with villains like Chairman Mao : "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Problems of War and Strategy (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.

As to me, I prefer Lincoln on this subject: "Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets."

Quoted by a man who was voted out of office by a bullet, after a war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to quash their "right" to form their own country. Seems like his words said one thing, his actions another. Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets, as long as the ballots say what they are supposed to. If not, then come the bullets.

Of course coercive force is needed to maintain the order of civilization....duh... However, its use and the need for its scale and/or efficiency has much to do with other factors which hold a society together. Since I am neither a Libertarian nor an Anarchist, I see the need for a reasonable balance.

A few more quotes:

Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.~Dwight D. Eisenhower

A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.~James Madison

These "rights" and "liberties" come out of the Enlightment-- and I've never really been one for Liberalism or John Locke. As any good person should be, I am a monarchist.

"They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic?"- Association Papers, London, 1793.

"God himself anoints the monarch to be head of the kingdom, while the president is elected by the pride of the people. The king stays in power by implementing God’s commandments, while the president does so by pleasing those who rule. The king brings his faithful subjects to God, while the president takes them away from God." -New martyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev

"Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." -C S Lewis

I find it a tad bit freightening that whenver Republics are set up there is some form of occultish or moneyed oligarchy behind it-- i.e. the Masons.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 02:08:55 PM by Manalive »

Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom

These "rights" and "liberties" come out of the Enlightment-- and I've never really been one for Liberalism or John Locke. As any good person should be, I am a monarchist.

Here Here! I agree, monarchy is God's works and demonacracy is an illusion of pride and selfishness. However even Janhoy HIM Haile Selassie I spoke of rights, in the same way the Catholic Church speaks of them. Rights are not strictly the intellectual property of the Enlightenment, rather the Enlightenment was examining what is clearly natural to humanity, that is certain rights and dignities.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

1) Rights TO something. ie - I have a right to eat this meal on my table.2) Rights as in "governmental type & freedom type".

But my opinionated answer to the OP is YES rights do come from God. God has given us freewill. The way we use this freewill will determine our salvation. If we use our freewill to "do our own will" rather than "thy (God's) will be done", we have chosen the wrong path in our right God has given us to freewill.

With that said addressing the above 1) By following God's will, we should be thankful for the blessings he's given us. However, he did give it to us and we have the right to it and/or the right to it to do his will.

addressing above 2) Governmental rights contort the true freewill right which God has blessed us with, but not always block. Rather than having true freewill, we are given a list of the rights that we have to the rules imposed upon the governed. However, that said, often these "governmental rights" do not affect the true freewill rights that God has blessed us with. ie - we are free to worship, we are free to print, we are free to watch pornography - but who do you worship? what do you print? What is your moral compass on pornography? We have the freewill originally and without actual interference by governmental rights.

So I believe the ultimately that rights indeed come from God, and its our choice how to use the right of freewill. Of course this is different than "A RIGHT TO something".

Rights can be a useful fiction for protecting against certain abuses, as opposed to the eternal rights of the deistic "Enlightenment," inscribed on the heart of man by the Supreme Being (as Robespierre said). I am not a fan of John Locke or liberalism either, but I can't see how monarchy has proven to be a better protector of the Church than republican governments. How many monarchs conducted themselves better than the millionaires, athletes, or film stars that Lewis refers to? It turns out that the God-ordained king who follows God's commandments and leads the people to holiness is just another philosophical abstraction like human rights.

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Rights can be a useful fiction for protecting against certain abuses, as opposed to the eternal rights of the deistic "Enlightenment," inscribed on the heart of man by the Supreme Being (as Robespierre said). I am not a fan of John Locke or liberalism either, but I can't see how monarchy has proven to be a better protector of the Church than republican governments. How many monarchs conducted themselves better than the millionaires, athletes, or film stars that Lewis refers to? It turns out that the God-ordained king who follows God's commandments and leads the people to holiness is just another philosophical abstraction like human rights.

Amen Amen. John Locke's Social Contract still applies within a monarchy in that the monarchy still has to provide essential services and needs for the constituency, its just that the people have less leverage against the monarchy and so feel less selfishly empowered, and more willing to compromise for the sake of society. In the cultural marxism thread we are discussing something similar, in the context of the successes and failures of American democracy, specifically as implemented in the California experience. I feel that a lot of the evils of our societies are exaggerated and grow exponentially as folks instead of thinking about how to compromise with their fellow brothers and sisters, instead have a democratic "its my way or the highway" approach and tend to overemphasize their own individual needs over the greater good of the society because of the selfish itch of democracy. It is a false sense of empowerment, and yet it totally empowers the individual torwards any selfish inclination.

Again then, human beings are born with certain rights and dignities, which both the Church and also most monarchies have continually asserted, let us pray for restoration of God's monarchies to overwhelm all this demonocracy

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Rights can be a useful fiction for protecting against certain abuses, as opposed to the eternal rights of the deistic "Enlightenment," inscribed on the heart of man by the Supreme Being (as Robespierre said). I am not a fan of John Locke or liberalism either, but I can't see how monarchy has proven to be a better protector of the Church than republican governments. How many monarchs conducted themselves better than the millionaires, athletes, or film stars that Lewis refers to? It turns out that the God-ordained king who follows God's commandments and leads the people to holiness is just another philosophical abstraction like human rights.

Amen Amen. John Locke's Social Contract still applies within a monarchy in that the monarchy still has to provide essential services and needs for the constituency, its just that the people have less leverage against the monarchy and so feel less selfishly empowered, and more willing to compromise for the sake of society. In the cultural marxism thread we are discussing something similar, in the context of the successes and failures of American democracy, specifically as implemented in the California experience. I feel that a lot of the evils of our societies are exaggerated and grow exponentially as folks instead of thinking about how to compromise with their fellow brothers and sisters, instead have a democratic "its my way or the highway" approach and tend to overemphasize their own individual needs over the greater good of the society because of the selfish itch of democracy. It is a false sense of empowerment, and yet it totally empowers the individual torwards any selfish inclination.

Again then, human beings are born with certain rights and dignities, which both the Church and also most monarchies have continually asserted, let us pray for restoration of God's monarchies to overwhelm all this demonocracy

stay blessed,habte selassie

I think you're missing Iconodule's point. Neither monarchy or a republican government are more perfect than each other. It's just all government, and it shouldn't matter where we stand with it all. To live God-like needs no government.

To be honest, despite the evils of democracy, I still thank God that this is the life I live, rather than Islamic dictatorship.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Rights can be a useful fiction for protecting against certain abuses, as opposed to the eternal rights of the deistic "Enlightenment," inscribed on the heart of man by the Supreme Being (as Robespierre said). I am not a fan of John Locke or liberalism either, but I can't see how monarchy has proven to be a better protector of the Church than republican governments. How many monarchs conducted themselves better than the millionaires, athletes, or film stars that Lewis refers to? It turns out that the God-ordained king who follows God's commandments and leads the people to holiness is just another philosophical abstraction like human rights.

Amen Amen. John Locke's Social Contract still applies within a monarchy in that the monarchy still has to provide essential services and needs for the constituency, its just that the people have less leverage against the monarchy and so feel less selfishly empowered, and more willing to compromise for the sake of society. In the cultural marxism thread we are discussing something similar, in the context of the successes and failures of American democracy, specifically as implemented in the California experience. I feel that a lot of the evils of our societies are exaggerated and grow exponentially as folks instead of thinking about how to compromise with their fellow brothers and sisters, instead have a democratic "its my way or the highway" approach and tend to overemphasize their own individual needs over the greater good of the society because of the selfish itch of democracy. It is a false sense of empowerment, and yet it totally empowers the individual torwards any selfish inclination.

Again then, human beings are born with certain rights and dignities, which both the Church and also most monarchies have continually asserted, let us pray for restoration of God's monarchies to overwhelm all this demonocracy

stay blessed,habte selassie

I think you're missing Iconodule's point. Neither monarchy or a republican government are more perfect than each other. It's just all government, and it shouldn't matter where we stand with it all. To live God-like needs no government.

To be honest, despite the evils of democracy, I still thank God that this is the life I live, rather than Islamic dictatorship.

As hard as I may try, I cannot find anyting in this post to disagree with :-)

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Nope, there's an absolute constitutional prohibition against that, as for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that's an entire field of constitutional law only tangentially related to due process law.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Nope, there's an absolute constitutional prohibition against that, as for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that's an entire field of constitutional law only tangentially related to due process law.

All you really have to do to negate "cruel and unusual" is to have the availability of a punishment that is crueler thereby making the other one merciful, and then do it enough that it is no longer unusual. Personally, I find lethal injection to be more unusual than good 'ole fashioned hangings.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Nope, there's an absolute constitutional prohibition against that, as for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that's an entire field of constitutional law only tangentially related to due process law.

All you really have to do to negate "cruel and unusual" is to have the availability of a punishment that is crueler thereby making the other one merciful, and then do it enough that it is no longer unusual. Personally, I find lethal injection to be more unusual than good 'ole fashioned hangings.

Really depends on who on the court you ask, this is one issue where you see very different approaches due to different judicial philosophy. For some, you simply have to demonstrate that a given punishment would not have been cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, for others (probably a majority of the current court) you have to demonstrate that a given punishment is not cruel and unusual by current social/legal standards. Where this usually comes up is with the death penalty which almost the entire second group considers 'cruel', but there is less agreement about whether it's 'unusual'; a punishment has to be both cruel and unusual to be unconstitutional.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Nope, there's an absolute constitutional prohibition against that, as for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that's an entire field of constitutional law only tangentially related to due process law.

All you really have to do to negate "cruel and unusual" is to have the availability of a punishment that is crueler thereby making the other one merciful, and then do it enough that it is no longer unusual. Personally, I find lethal injection to be more unusual than good 'ole fashioned hangings.

That is also one of the current arguments against Capital punishment, that psychologically the death penalty becomes cruel and unusual punishment because of the sheer unusual absurdity of "humane" killing.. we have crowded Death rows across the US because there isn't enough of these drugs to do the job, some states are even using the same chemicals used to euthanise animals at the vet

I agree with the Catholic Church about this one, the Death penalty is ALWAYS cruel and unusual because it negates the opportunity for Repentance. Obviously it took the Latins well over a few hundred years to come to this understanding by Grace, however it is a valid decision all historical hypocrisy aside.

Further, the death penalty is merely eye for an eye, and implicates victims in the sins of the killer by allowing them to feel vindicated in casting scathing judgment rather then forgiveness, which God asks us to do. It is not easy, it takes Grace, but we have to leave then the option and opportunity for Grace to operate rather then dismissing Grace impetuously and acting on our own inherently weak-hearted position.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Nope, there's an absolute constitutional prohibition against that, as for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that's an entire field of constitutional law only tangentially related to due process law.

All you really have to do to negate "cruel and unusual" is to have the availability of a punishment that is crueler thereby making the other one merciful, and then do it enough that it is no longer unusual. Personally, I find lethal injection to be more unusual than good 'ole fashioned hangings.

That is also one of the current arguments against Capital punishment, that psychologically the death penalty becomes cruel and unusual punishment because of the sheer unusual absurdity of "humane" killing.. we have crowded Death rows across the US because there isn't enough of these drugs to do the job, some states are even using the same chemicals used to euthanise animals at the vet

I agree with the Catholic Church about this one, the Death penalty is ALWAYS cruel and unusual because it negates the opportunity for Repentance. Obviously it took the Latins well over a few hundred years to come to this understanding by Grace, however it is a valid decision all historical hypocrisy aside.

Further, the death penalty is merely eye for an eye, and implicates victims in the sins of the killer by allowing them to feel vindicated in casting scathing judgment rather then forgiveness, which God asks us to do. It is not easy, it takes Grace, but we have to leave then the option and opportunity for Grace to operate rather then dismissing Grace impetuously and acting on our own inherently weak-hearted position.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Here you have argued that the death penalty is cruel and I think most people would agree. But as the court has said repeatedly on this issue, being cruel is not enough to make it unconstitutional, you must also prove that it is unusual. There are good arguments that it is also unusual and this is where most modern legal arguments about the issue are centered, but these arguments tend to be far more sensitive to judicial philosophy then the discussion of cruelty. The difficulty is in the types of arguments you can make for it being unusual; yes, you can argue that we're nearly alone in the civilized world in having the death penalty, but many (including a majority on the court) would likely argue that this cannot be considered since it would essentially be subjecting constitutional law to international law/norms which is inconsonant with existing legal norms and case law.

You could argue that since the death penalty is only rarely applied even in the case of murder that it is unusual, but the other side would insist that this is the case because it is only used for the worst offenders...this may or may not be true, but since deference is generally given to the trial court the burden of proof would be on those arguing against the death penalty and they have not effectively made this argument yet (though there is some evidence that Justice Kennedy along with the liberal wing of the court would at least be receptive to it, it would still be a difficult argument to make). Personally, I think the real battle is in the state legislatures, once a majority of states, the parties that ratify the constitution, ban the death penalty I think the court will strike it down as both cruel and unusual; but until that time, though the 'cruel' part of the argument is easy to make, I think the 'unusual' half of the argument will continue to be a difficult one.

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Nope, there's an absolute constitutional prohibition against that, as for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that's an entire field of constitutional law only tangentially related to due process law.

All you really have to do to negate "cruel and unusual" is to have the availability of a punishment that is crueler thereby making the other one merciful, and then do it enough that it is no longer unusual. Personally, I find lethal injection to be more unusual than good 'ole fashioned hangings.

That is also one of the current arguments against Capital punishment, that psychologically the death penalty becomes cruel and unusual punishment because of the sheer unusual absurdity of "humane" killing.. we have crowded Death rows across the US because there isn't enough of these drugs to do the job, some states are even using the same chemicals used to euthanise animals at the vet

I agree with the Catholic Church about this one, the Death penalty is ALWAYS cruel and unusual because it negates the opportunity for Repentance. Obviously it took the Latins well over a few hundred years to come to this understanding by Grace, however it is a valid decision all historical hypocrisy aside.

Further, the death penalty is merely eye for an eye, and implicates victims in the sins of the killer by allowing them to feel vindicated in casting scathing judgment rather then forgiveness, which God asks us to do. It is not easy, it takes Grace, but we have to leave then the option and opportunity for Grace to operate rather then dismissing Grace impetuously and acting on our own inherently weak-hearted position.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Here you have argued that the death penalty is cruel and I think most people would agree. But as the court has said repeatedly on this issue, being cruel is not enough to make it unconstitutional, you must also prove that it is unusual. There are good arguments that it is also unusual and this is where most modern legal arguments about the issue are centered, but these arguments tend to be far more sensitive to judicial philosophy then the discussion of cruelty. The difficulty is in the types of arguments you can make for it being unusual; yes, you can argue that we're nearly alone in the civilized world in having the death penalty, but many (including a majority on the court) would likely argue that this cannot be considered since it would essentially be subjecting constitutional law to international law/norms which is inconsonant with existing legal norms and case law.

You could argue that since the death penalty is only rarely applied even in the case of murder that it is unusual, but the other side would insist that this is the case because it is only used for the worst offenders...this may or may not be true, but since deference is generally given to the trial court the burden of proof would be on those arguing against the death penalty and they have not effectively made this argument yet (though there is some evidence that Justice Kennedy along with the liberal wing of the court would at least be receptive to it, it would still be a difficult argument to make). Personally, I think the real battle is in the state legislatures, once a majority of states, the parties that ratify the constitution, ban the death penalty I think the court will strike it down as both cruel and unusual; but until that time, though the 'cruel' part of the argument is easy to make, I think the 'unusual' half of the argument will continue to be a difficult one.

Thank you counselor

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I want to reply,but frankly, I don't know what to say. I guess something about this comment coupled with the avatar makes me speechless.

Think about it. If it is truly a right, nobody can take it away from you. If someone can take it away from you, then it is only a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a right is only something that you are not willing to allow someone else to take from you, and something that you have the means to secure. I have the freedom of speech only as long as I will not allow someone to silence me, by whatever means that takes. I have the right to be secure in my person only as long as I am not willing, and have the means, to prevent someone else from dominating me. There is nothing so sad to me as to see a slave, unwilling and unable to do anything they are not specifically allowed to do, talk about their "rights". They have none. Nobody can "violate my rights". I will either kill them for trying, or die defending them. Those things that I allow others to do to me, or take from me, are not rights, but only license granted to me by another. Only those with power have rights.

There's some things in the Constitution and things in practice that make me wonder. For instance, if rights really and truly can never be taken away from you, then even prisoners should own guns. But if prisoners have that specific "right" revoked, either in reality, there is no right to own guns, but a privilege to own them, or the state has a right to cruel and unusual punishment, since prisoners are not entitled to "rights" or so it seems. In other words, there's a lack of consistency in our laws as what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

The constitution doesn't absolutely protect life, liberty, and property. It simply prohibits denying these rights without due process. It is assume that those in prison have been deprived these rights with due process, if due process was found not to have been followed the convictions can be overturned by the court on those grounds without any reference to actual guilt or innocence.

So can we in due process allow cruel and unusual punishment?

Nope, there's an absolute constitutional prohibition against that, as for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that's an entire field of constitutional law only tangentially related to due process law.

All you really have to do to negate "cruel and unusual" is to have the availability of a punishment that is crueler thereby making the other one merciful, and then do it enough that it is no longer unusual. Personally, I find lethal injection to be more unusual than good 'ole fashioned hangings.

That is also one of the current arguments against Capital punishment, that psychologically the death penalty becomes cruel and unusual punishment because of the sheer unusual absurdity of "humane" killing.. we have crowded Death rows across the US because there isn't enough of these drugs to do the job, some states are even using the same chemicals used to euthanise animals at the vet

I agree with the Catholic Church about this one, the Death penalty is ALWAYS cruel and unusual because it negates the opportunity for Repentance. Obviously it took the Latins well over a few hundred years to come to this understanding by Grace, however it is a valid decision all historical hypocrisy aside.

Further, the death penalty is merely eye for an eye, and implicates victims in the sins of the killer by allowing them to feel vindicated in casting scathing judgment rather then forgiveness, which God asks us to do. It is not easy, it takes Grace, but we have to leave then the option and opportunity for Grace to operate rather then dismissing Grace impetuously and acting on our own inherently weak-hearted position.

stay blessed,habte selassie

except that you misrepresent at least the letter of the Catholic Church

The Death Penalty is permissible in Catholic Social teaching, as long as all other methods have been drained out, and it is impossible for society to be truly protected against the criminal